h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The problem the established churched have with "Jerusalem" - the hymn can be interpreted as Christian as the first verse, at least, uses recognised and approved Christian imagery, ie "the holy lamb of God" as a poetic synonym for Jesus Christ.

The problem is its assertion of something long believed in folklore and English/Celtic mythology, but for which there is no proof or reference in the Bible. The idea that Jesus Christ came to Britain isn't entirely outrageous nor is it impossible. There are those huge gaps in the four standard biographies, for instance. Where was he and what did he do between ages one year - twelve years old, and again in the even longer gap between his thirteenth and thirtieth years? If the Big Four had between them thought to fill these gaps, it would have spared a lot of speculation...The Bible does tell us Jesus had a rich friend and follower, possibly a blood relative, clled Joseph of Arimathea, who by inference became wealthy on trading with the rest of the Roman Empire and possibly beyond. So it is not improbable that the young Jesus learnt something of the way of the world from his trader (uncle)? And in those days the Roman Empire stretched to the French coast - Britain wasn't properly added unil the 40's AD, but traded tin, animals, et c, with Rome.

So, not impossible, as there is enough uncharted time in the life of Jesus for such voyages - but from the PoV of the Churches, not admissible, as it isn't in the Bible. Also, what with the New Age thing about Glastonbury, ley lines, Stonehenge, et c, the Church is very sensitive on the idea that its founder might have dabbled in what it is pleased to call paganism - any concept that gives the New Agers an opportunity to claim Jesus for themselves, say the extention of the idea to claim that he came to Britan/Ireland to study with the Druids - they don't like it at all.

It's a beguiling idea and I'd love to say it's true, but there's also the otherwise inexplicable parable of Christ sitting under the fig tree and damning it for not being able to produce fruit.

When you realise the fig tree is sacred to Buddhism and this religion was almost certainly around at the time of Jesus, you might just as well argue that Jesus went east and studied with the Buddha... the story of his daming and blasting the fig tree is a coded picture of his having fallen out with that religion, perhaps? Makes as much sense and just as tenable as his visiting Glastonbury. And while the British make a big jingoistic thing about being specially blessed by those feet,in ancient times, walking on their mountains green, those feet would logically also have walked accross quite a lot of modern-day France and Italy to get there...

Thanks AgProv - that's a fascinating summary of the attitude towards 'Jerusalem'. I'd love to have covered things in that detail within the entry, but it was long enough. At least it's here now.

Icy

Thanks, Icy!

it could also be said that the Church of England is wary of the hymn "Jerusalem" for three further reasons, depending on which part of it you choose to talk to:

i) The liberal wing of the church isn't at home with the jingoistic mentality that hears the hymn and asserts that this somehow makes the British a specially favoured case in the eyes of the Lord;
ii) The evangelistic, more fundamentalist Protestant "happy-clappy" end of the church spectrum will note that it's by William Blake, a poet, seer and mystic who created a whole new mysticism and theology which posits a multiplicity of Gods and God-like entities. Just because he wrote one vaguely orthodox poem which was then taken up as a hymn does not prevent his other ideas from being seen as heretical and Satanic...
iii) That part of the dear old CoE which deservedly has the nickname "the Tory party at prayer" hates the hymn, because of the way the grubby unwashed proles of the Trade Union and Labour movement have taken it up as an anthem calling for greater social justice and equality (cue lines about dark Satanic mills, not ceasing from mental fight, insomniac swords, and building Jerusalem, ie a socialist utopia, in England's green and pleasant land). For some reasn, they feel threatened by this...

And of course, the only even indirect and circumstancial evidence the Bible offers for the possibility Jesus might have passed beyond the borders of Palestine and visited other countries, is the parable of the fig tree. And this points in entirely the other direction, towards India and China!

Story: Christ sits underneath a fig tree and challenges it to put forth fruit, even though anyone would be aware that this was out of season for figs. When the tree fails to oblige with instant fruit, Jesus curses it and causes it to wither and die.

This does not seem like Christlike behaviour: why should the loving Jesus throw his teddy into a corner and curse a living tree, when it wasn't its fault that it couldn't oblige with fruit out of season? This is like asking for apples in April: you don't get, it's futile.

The story only begins to make sense when you add the missing detail that the fig tree is sacred to Buddhism, that Gautama Buddha sat, prayed and meditated under a fig tree and out of this came the set of ethical and religious principles we know as Buddhism. I'd hazard an educated guess that Jesus is symbolically blasting an entire rival religion here - and for this to make sense, he'd have needed to know what it was in order to reject its teachings, and so would the people watching. Buddhist missionaries and teachers might have come this far West (and run into a hostile Judaic monotheism?): but could it be that during the missing years, Jesus went East to see and learn what he could? It's interesting the Bible supports this notion, but not that of his visiting anywhere west of Israel. Which still doesn't rule out England,of course!